Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum Criticize Gay Marriage Rulings

By
On Top Magazine Staff
Published:
June 27, 2013

Potential GOP candidates for president
in 2016 Senators Rand Paul of Kentucky and Marco Rubio of Florida and
Rick Santorum have criticized two Supreme Court rulings on gay
marriage.

The high court released the decisions
on Wednesday. Together they mean that California will become the
13th state, plus the District of Columbia, to allow gay
nuptials, and that the federal government must recognize those
unions.

“I am very disappointed with today's
Supreme Court rulings regarding marriage,” Santorum said in a
statement. “The DOMA decision is another case of the high court
overstepping its role, just as it did with Roe v. Wade.”

“Further, the Proposition 8 ruling
refuses to affirm the process envisioned by our founders for the
American people to express its will. These great moral issues of our
time should be left to the democratic process, not to five activist
judges.”

Rubio said in a statement that he
appreciates “that many Americans' attitude towards same-sex
marriage have changed in recent years” but added that such
“disagreements” should be “settled through the democratic
process, as the Founders intended, not through litigation and court
pronouncements.”

“It is also my hope that those who
argue for the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex marriage
will refrain from assailing the millions of Americans who disagree
with them as bigots,” he
added.

Appearing on Glenn Beck's radio show,
Paul found a “good side” to the court's ruling which struck down
Proposition 8, California's gay marriage ban, due to petitioners'
lack of standing.

“They're trying to say nothing,”
Paul said. “The good side to this ruling is they have affirmed to
states that this is a state issue and states can decide.”

He also suggested that allowing gay
couples to marry could lead to polygamy or bestiality.

On limiting marriage to two people,
Paul said “it is difficult because if we have no laws on this,
people take it one extension further. 'Does it have to be human?'
The question is, can some social mores be part of legislation? …
The stability of the marriage unit is enormous and we shouldn't just
say, 'Oh, we're punting on it and marriage can be anything.'”